Court Scenario - who is believed
Discussion
I've been thinking about the following situation, how would this normally play out in court.
Person A claims that Person B made certain claims (verbally, nothing written down) e.g. "Person B told me (Person A) that he would sell me customer details".
Person B denies it, (in this case because it didn't happen and Person A is trying it on!)
Who is believed?
The reason Person A is making the claims is because this means they get out of having to pay Person B some money.
Thank you!
Person A claims that Person B made certain claims (verbally, nothing written down) e.g. "Person B told me (Person A) that he would sell me customer details".
Person B denies it, (in this case because it didn't happen and Person A is trying it on!)
Who is believed?
The reason Person A is making the claims is because this means they get out of having to pay Person B some money.
Thank you!
singlecoil said:
Are you absolutely sure of that, that a (probably small claims) case would not even get a hearing if the contact was purely verbal?
Disputes based on verbal agreements do get to court, though it would be a brave or foolhardy claimant to rely on a disputed verbal agreement alone with the absence of any other evidence whatsoever . In the example you give though I can't see what basis there is for a claim unless the party who should have supplied the names was paid to do so by the other party then failed to do so.In court it comes down to how credible the witnesses are and is there any other evidence, for example evidence of a payment made from one party to another for services or goods then not supplied.
singlecoil said:
Are you absolutely sure of that, that a (probably small claims) case would not even get a hearing if the contact was purely verbal?
I think what he means is when a party is lying they will be all ballsy and bluff the other party in the hope it goes no further.Then the court papers arrive the rethink their position.
Then time ticks on and the hearing date is set. Then in the weeks or days before the hearing the lying party gives up the hope that they are being bluffed, and the realisation hits that they will have to produce witness statements under oath, and then com to court to tell a bare faced lie to a Judge.
Then they start negotiating to settle.
Thanks all for the responses. A bit more info which may add some clarity.
Person B made an agreement to sell company to Person A, part of which meant that B got balance of payment down the line. When that time came, Person A is now claiming that B broke the agreement by trying to sell customer details to Person C.
B doesn't deny speaking to C, but denies ever trying to sell lists or anything else, and regardless this conversation happened before agreement to sell to Person A was on the cards. C has no proof other than a conversation. As soon as Person A came onto the scene, contact between B and C was cut off.
Person A is not paying out based on what C has told them.
B is taking A to court for not paying up.
Person B made an agreement to sell company to Person A, part of which meant that B got balance of payment down the line. When that time came, Person A is now claiming that B broke the agreement by trying to sell customer details to Person C.
B doesn't deny speaking to C, but denies ever trying to sell lists or anything else, and regardless this conversation happened before agreement to sell to Person A was on the cards. C has no proof other than a conversation. As soon as Person A came onto the scene, contact between B and C was cut off.
Person A is not paying out based on what C has told them.
B is taking A to court for not paying up.
Kudos said:
Thanks all for the responses. A bit more info which may add some clarity.
Person B made an agreement to sell company to Person A, part of which meant that B got balance of payment down the line. When that time came, Person A is now claiming that B broke the agreement by trying to sell customer details to Person C.
B doesn't deny speaking to C, but denies ever trying to sell lists or anything else, and regardless this conversation happened before agreement to sell to Person A was on the cards. C has no proof other than a conversation. As soon as Person A came onto the scene, contact between B and C was cut off.
Person A is not paying out based on what C has told them.
B is taking A to court for not paying up.
So there was an agreement not to sell customer details?Person B made an agreement to sell company to Person A, part of which meant that B got balance of payment down the line. When that time came, Person A is now claiming that B broke the agreement by trying to sell customer details to Person C.
B doesn't deny speaking to C, but denies ever trying to sell lists or anything else, and regardless this conversation happened before agreement to sell to Person A was on the cards. C has no proof other than a conversation. As soon as Person A came onto the scene, contact between B and C was cut off.
Person A is not paying out based on what C has told them.
B is taking A to court for not paying up.
But before that agreement was made it is alleged that B tried to do this?
Then the content of the conversation doesn't matter as all. You can't hold someone to task about breaching a contract before that contract was in force.
Looks like A is looking for an excuse not to pay and needs legal advice.
In this sort of case it's strictly balance of probabilities. Which probably comes down to who's direction person C is likely to lean in.
If there was only discussion with person C but no customer details were passed then there's probably no breach of contract regardless of when that discussion took place. If, on the other hand, person C was passed details then it would come down to when those details were passed (before or after the contract to sell the company).
Say, for example, that B had discussions with C and agreed to pass details but, before those details were passed, also agreed to sell the company in it's entirety to A, then honouring the agreement with C after negotiations with A commenced would probably breach the contract with A unless A was told about the earlier agreement during negotiations.
If, on the other hand, the details were actually passed to C before negotiations with A commenced then it's not material to the company sale (although would have been good manners to mention!)
So, if it goes to Court, C's willingness to agree B's timeline would be pretty crucial. If he claims any details were passed after negotiations with A started then B's defence would be substantially weakened.
If there was only discussion with person C but no customer details were passed then there's probably no breach of contract regardless of when that discussion took place. If, on the other hand, person C was passed details then it would come down to when those details were passed (before or after the contract to sell the company).
Say, for example, that B had discussions with C and agreed to pass details but, before those details were passed, also agreed to sell the company in it's entirety to A, then honouring the agreement with C after negotiations with A commenced would probably breach the contract with A unless A was told about the earlier agreement during negotiations.
If, on the other hand, the details were actually passed to C before negotiations with A commenced then it's not material to the company sale (although would have been good manners to mention!)
So, if it goes to Court, C's willingness to agree B's timeline would be pretty crucial. If he claims any details were passed after negotiations with A started then B's defence would be substantially weakened.
To add a bit more.
There was absolutely no sale/passing of customer lists across.
Person C offered Person B a role with their company in Dec. As soon as Person A wanted to buy the company (in Jan), all communication between B and C ceased.
Person A has subsequently spoken with C, and made them aware that B had spoken to them. 2+2=5, and A is chancing their arm to get out of paying.
At this point B has no idea what C has told A, this information is "on the grapevine".
Based on what you have all said (thank you!), if C stands up and tells the truth then B has nothing to worry about.
Based on clarifications given, and my original question:
If however C stands up and says "B offered to sell me details and it was after A+B had an agreement", then who is believed, assuming no written material can be provided?
There was absolutely no sale/passing of customer lists across.
Person C offered Person B a role with their company in Dec. As soon as Person A wanted to buy the company (in Jan), all communication between B and C ceased.
Person A has subsequently spoken with C, and made them aware that B had spoken to them. 2+2=5, and A is chancing their arm to get out of paying.
At this point B has no idea what C has told A, this information is "on the grapevine".
Based on what you have all said (thank you!), if C stands up and tells the truth then B has nothing to worry about.
Based on clarifications given, and my original question:
If however C stands up and says "B offered to sell me details and it was after A+B had an agreement", then who is believed, assuming no written material can be provided?
Kudos said:
Based on what you have all said (thank you!), if C stands up and tells the truth then B has nothing to worry about.
Based on clarifications given, and my original question:
If however C stands up and says "B offered to sell me details and it was after A+B had an agreement", then who is believed, assuming no written material can be provided?
The offer itself would not breach any contract unless it was followed up by actually passing details. Based on clarifications given, and my original question:
If however C stands up and says "B offered to sell me details and it was after A+B had an agreement", then who is believed, assuming no written material can be provided?
So, unless C was prepared to claim in Court that details were passed and (under questioning) show evidence of those details (you'd expect either paper copies or emails from B to be available for this because it's somewhat unlikely that customer details would be passed by word of mouth) B should still be on pretty solid ground.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff